Smallmouth Issues/msa Meeting

[Al Agnew]

I was unable to attend the MSA meeting this week in which MDC biologist John Ackerson talked about the current state of smallmouth regulations, the tagging studies, and the angler survey. However, I received an informal summary of the meeting via email, along with some comments on it by a certain biologist who cares deeply about stream smallmouth as well. Here are the highlights, a bit about the biologist's comments, and my own take on some things.

Some preliminary results of the angler survey were discussed. In general, they found that anglers were in support of changing statewide regulations, with about 70% in favor. MSA members were very much in favor, but the general angling population was also in favor. Concerning creel limits, the most popular choice was a daily limit of four. As to minimum length limits, there was most support for a 14 inch limit, with a 15 inch limit not far behind.

The biologist noted that there have been similar responses from creel survey questions over the past 25 years. He said that although most anglers believe that a creel limit would improve angling, very few anglers actually catch limits, so to make real improvements in smallmouth populations you need to restrict the harvest by high minimum length limits or strict catch and release.

I don't quite agree with the biologist here. Although he obviously knows more than I do about the science, I suspect that he might be using old data to say that few anglers catch limits. Seems to me that there are more GOOD anglers today, using better equipment and with more knowledge. Back before the advent of jetboats, there weren't many serious stream bass fishermen, but there are a lot more now. Yes, the average Joe who is camped at a campground on some stream and wading around the campground trying to catch a fish, or the guys who rent a canoe and throw in a fishing rod to try to catch something in between beers are not going to catch limits very often, but serious bass anglers can usually catch 6 bass of 12 inches or better most of the times they are on the river during the warm weather months at least. I know I can, and all the other good anglers I know can, as well. The casual anglers don't have much impact on a population, but there are plenty of good anglers these days, and it is those anglers that you must regulate. In smaller streams, it only takes a very few good anglers catching and keeping limits to make a serious dent in the population, and lowering the creel limit might have a lot of benefit in such streams, especially.

In the survey, responses to the question of what is a "quality" smallmouth generally ranged between 14 and 18 inches with 14-15 inches getting the widest support.

I think this is somewhat a function of the present state of smallmouth fishing in most streams. There simply aren't a lot of fish bigger than 15 inches. The average angler that targets smallies probably seldom catches one over 15 inches, so a 15 incher will be a quality fish. Personally, I think 15 inches is a decent fish, but I don't really consider the fish to be real quality until it's 17 inches. I also think that lots of streams are capable of producing more fish over 15 inches than they do at present.

They said that MDC is still compiling results and won't issue a final report until late summer 2012. They seemed to be encouraged by the overall level of angler participation and the information they obtained. No promises were made concerning future regs changes, but they continually stressed that they didn't do the survey, the two tagging studies--the reward tags and a telemetry study on the Current River--for nothing, and that they firmly intend to use the information gained to formulate future regs changes.

The biologist was a little less encouraging, noting that although there has been a lot of activity in studies, there has been no movement on actually proposing regs changes, and that they have been studying this for 20 years.

I suspect that the biologists might be serious about proposing new regs at some point, but the question is whether the higher ups will go for them.

They said that "everything is on the table" as far as regs changes, including expansion and additional special management stretches, statewide changes, slot limits, catch and release sections. However, they may need more baseline information about specific stream sections when considering something like the "trophy" 18 inch, 1 fish regs regime. They may be changing their stream evaluation criteria from what they have been doing before. They said that enforcement and unfriendly judges must still be considered with special regs.

The biologist thinks that this is standard operating procedure...that they use the enforcement problems to justify not making changes. He believes that when regs are changed, most anglers will follow them, and that there aren't enough judges or agents to make a difference in angler compliance, so the compliance angle really isn't valid. Those who don't comply will already be NOT complying with present regs.

I think this is an interesting take on it. We always complain that there aren't enough agents doing their jobs. But the same people that are following the regs now will probably follow new ones, and the same ones that are breaking the rules now (and not getting caught) will continue breaking new ones (and not getting caught). In other words, changing the regs would result in positive results even though there will be problems in enforcement.

There was an interesting discussion of slot limits. Basically, the biological justification for a slot limit is a high density of small, slow-growing fish without enough food to go around, and this type of situation is much more likely to be found in a closed system like a pond or small lake. Slots can be effective if the habitat and food availability are an issue, but they did not say that this was the reason for the relatively high number of small fish in proportion to larger ones.

The biologist noted that the streams do not suffer a scarcity of food in any form. He said that in open systems such as streams with adequate habitat, there is a continuous supply of energy flowing through the system. He flat out said the reason there are lots of little fish and few big ones is because anglers are harvesting fish when they reach legal size. His studies, and the studies of other researchers, have shown that mortality jumps from about 15% to 60-85% when legal size is reached.

I have a lot of thoughts on this, but I think everybody should take the biologist's comments to heart here. We've heard before that supposedly, so few anglers are keeping smallmouth that they are not having a huge impact on the populations. Yet those percentages he threw out totally bely that. And back when I used to keep careful records of all the smallmouth I caught for one MDC study, I saw the same thing...lots and lots of fish up to 12 inches, and a precipitous drop in numbers right around 12 inches.

As to slot limits not being necessary because there is no bottleneck in small fish due to lack of food, I would agree that the biological justification for a slot probably isn't there. But I've said before that there are biological reasons for regulations, and "angler management" reasons. In my opinion, the beauty of a slot limit is that it protects bigger fish while allowing harvest of the abundant smaller fish. The only way to get to a fishery with many more really big fish is to protect those fish until they get really big. Since there seems to be that sudden drop-off in numbers of fish right around whatever the length limit is, if you have a 14 inch length limit instead of the current 12 inch limit, it only means you catch more fish between 12 and 14 inches, but the numbers of bigger fish than that are probably still going to be nearly as low. If you put the length limit at 18 inches, then you get a lot more fish up to 18 inches, but unless you couple it with a really low creel limit like on the present "trophy" management areas with a one fish limit, you still end up with very few fish over 18 inches. And with a 1 fish 18 inch limit, you are hardly making it worthwhile for those who want to catch and keep fish.

The thing is, we have plenty of small fish on most Ozark streams, and I think they could stand quite a bit of harvest. But we have few big ones, and they need protection. A slot limit, while not biologically justified in the traditional sense, would allow harvest of, say, 4 fish under 14 inches, enough for a decent meal, and one fish over 18 or 20 inches, a true trophy, while protecting a lot of fish up to that 18-20 inch size at the same time as it "appeased" the catch and keep people. And since the streams are open systems, it couldn't hurt the populations.

The tagging study was discussed. About 42% of the tags have been returned, indicating a high level of fishing pressure. There were about 1500 keeper size smallmouth tagged. There was no breakdown on the number of fish harvested versus those released after taking the tag. The full report will be finalized after the end of the first full year (early June). Several people have returned tags on fish caught on the Meramec that were tagged in the spring on the Courtois, with one fish having moved 50 miles downstream. They said that the info will be valuable in establishing future special regs waters, in considering the length of stream reaches proposed.

The biologist noted that he wasn't sure whether that data has much significance in considering regulations, since while some fish move a lot, it doesn't really influence population studies and is not considered a reason for the lack of large fish.

It's always a lot easier to do more studies, rather than propose new regulations. Studies can "justify" salaries without the risk of alienating people by coming up with concrete proposals. But I am not quite that cynical...I think, and hope, that these guys are really interested in improving the size structure of Ozark stream smallies.

[Mitch f]

Great summary...I, like you do feel the MDC is committed to improving the streams for us all.

But I want it NOW!!!!!!

[Smalliebigs]

John said there will be an extensive tagging study by the University of Missouri and MDC on the Jacks Fork from the Prongs to the Current this year. He told me after the meeting in the parking lot to expect a lot more jon boats and activity on that stream this year.

The goofballs that called their tags in from 2011 that mis/informed the MDC as to where the fish were caught are clowns IMO. They are worried about the MDC knowing their honey holes????? after the MDC tagged this fish in the first place.....lol

[LarrySTL]

Al said < I snipped it for length >: back when I used to keep careful records of all the smallmouth I caught for one MDC study, I saw the same thing...lots and lots of fish up to 12 inches, and a precipitous drop in numbers right around 12 inches.

As to slot limits not being necessary because there is no bottleneck in small fish due to lack of food, I would agree that the biological justification for a slot probably isn't there. But I've said before that there are biological reasons for regulations, and "angler management" reasons. In my opinion, the beauty of a slot limit is that it protects bigger fish while allowing harvest of the abundant smaller fish. The only way to get to a fishery with many more really big fish is to protect those fish until they get really big. Since there seems to be that sudden drop-off in numbers of fish right around whatever the length limit is, if you have a 14 inch length limit instead of the current 12 inch limit, it only means you catch more fish between 12 and 14 inches, but the numbers of bigger fish than that are probably still going to be nearly as low. If you put the length limit at 18 inches, then you get a lot more fish up to 18 inches, but unless you couple it with a really low creel limit like on the present "trophy" management areas with a one fish limit, you still end up with very few fish over 18 inches. And with a 1 fish 18 inch limit, you are hardly making it worthwhile for those who want to catch and keep fish.

The thing is, we have plenty of small fish on most Ozark streams, and I think they could stand quite a bit of harvest. But we have few big ones, and they need protection. A slot limit, while not biologically justified in the traditional sense, would allow harvest of, say, 4 fish under 14 inches, enough for a decent meal, and one fish over 18 or 20 inches, a true trophy, while protecting a lot of fish up to that 18-20 inch size at the same time as it "appeased" the catch and keep people. And since the streams are open systems, it couldn't hurt the populations.

===================================================================

Thanks Al

One result of size limits is a lot of fish just below the keeper size, and I see Al's point that things like an 18 " minimum would keep a lot of casual angers away. With those things in mind, what if MDC did some more rivers, or major sections of big rivers at 18" minimum, one fish limit; would that result in some areas with excellent big fish populations and very little casual angler pressure ? Those who keep legal fish might go to some other river, leaving the C&R folks (including most of this forum) with some locations with good populations of big fish, and light pressure from those who might otherwise keep fish.

Do we know if its working out that way on the two (?) present 18 inch/one fish areas ?

[Smalliebigs]

"And with a 1 fish 18 inch limit, you are hardly making it worthwhile for those who want to catch and keep fish."

So what.....I'm sick of the MDC catering to catch and keep fisherman. When I posed a question to John about the possibility of one river beeing designated as a catch and release only stream, he squirmed like a Chesnut Lamprey....lol. I exclaimed it's just a dream I have and he squirmed again. The MDC cares more about the heritage of eating fish in Missouri than they do for making real changes that could be mind boggling. It's fine I accept it for what it is...... I'm still a smallie freak!!!!!!

[ozark trout fisher]

Good question, Larry.

Why is it I never hear anything about the special regs waters?

Are they so good no one is talking, or is anyone actually fishing them?

Is anyone fishing Ten Mile Creek? And if so, what are you catching?

I don't know a thing about Ten Mile, but for what it's worth most of the highest quality stretches of smallmouth water I've fished in MO are special management areas. Based on my experience, which is pretty limited compared to a lot of folks on here, I do feel like I tend to catch noticeably larger bass in the SMAs compared to similar streams under statewide regs. I don't want to argue about it, this is just my observation and if others disagree that's fine.

[Chief Grey Bear]

They said that MDC is still compiling results and won't issue a final report until late summer 2012. They seemed to be encouraged by the overall level of angler participation and the information they obtained. No promises were made concerning future regs changes, but they continually stressed that they didn't do the survey, the two tagging studies--the reward tags and a telemetry study on the Current River--for nothing, and that they firmly intend to use the information gained to formulate future regs changes.

I certainly hope they are not planning on using info from 2 or 3 of the most heavily fished streams to set the standard for the whole state?????

[LarrySTL]

Decades ago before the 15 " limit went in on Table Rock and a few other impoundments, you could see, year by year, Table Rock having more and more really small bass from about 8 to 11+ inches, and fewer and fewer decent size or really big fish. When MDC put in the 15" minimum, most people I knew hated it, me included. However, within just two or three years, the "small bass" were not 9 and 10 inches, but were 13 and 14 inches, and the truely big bass, began showing up again, the 7 and 8 pound largemouth. When that became obvious, the serious bass folks there shifted from hating 15 " to strongly supporting 15 ". Around that same time, "catch and kill" began switching to C&R.

I know there are big differences between LM in major reservoirs and SM in rivers and creeks, but the same thing could happen resulting in a bigger size of "small bass" and a reemergence of big fish, however we may define big.

MDC seems to realize they have many constiuencies, including the catch-kill-cook folks, and I doubt we could ever get the whole state to anything like 18/1. MDC can't give each faction their way on all waters. I agree with Smalliebigs that MDC won't do that. But, what if we combined his idea and aimed for a few 18/1 or absolute C&R rivers, with Al's frequent comments that a lot of having big SM is about habitat. What if the CatchKillCook folks were happy with some CKC streams that have poor big fish habitat anyway, and we got a lot of streams, or far larger areas of them, to something like 15/3, and got some to 18/1 or total C&R ?

Is the route for MDC to not try to make each constituency tickled pink, but to give each constiuency enough of "their way" to be content with the overall plan ?

[Mitch f]

I certainly hope they are not planning on using info from 2 or 3 of the most heavily fished streams to set the standard for the whole state?????

[drew03cmc]

I certainly hope they are not planning on using info from 2 or 3 of the most heavily fished streams to set the standard for the whole state?????

That is how they work. You know it and I know it.